Comments about ‘Susan Roylance: DOMA was meant to protect children, not 'injure' them’

The author of the New Family Structures Study admitted at the time the study was
published that it should not be used in determining whether or not same-sex
marriage should be legal. He stated that this was due to the many shortcomings
of the study, including that the participants in the study came from broken
homes and had many other factors that influenced the outcome other than any
memories the participants may have had regarding the sexual relationships their
parents may or may not have had.

Since the study was published, there
have been a great many questions raised about its validity and methodology - and
again, the author of the study has admitted there were flaws with it and for
this reason it should not be relied upon as a reason to prohibit same-sex
marriage.

As a final point, recognizing same-sex marriage provides
protection for the children being raised in same-sex headed households. The
existence of DOMA did not prevent these families from being formed and the
removal of one part of DOMA is not going to in and of itself create more of
these families than would otherwise exist.

if its purpose was really to protect children then it was ill conceived and
should have never been passed int he first place since the research clearly
shows that children raised in two parent same sex homes fair as well as children
raised in two parent heterosexual homes. this has been proven out time and again
through he research and vetted out through the court of law.

I'm straight and have 3 almost grown children. All 3 of my children are
also straight. My kids are not now nor will they be harmed by the SCOTUS
decision on DOMA. My kids will likely marry in the next 10 yrs or so and
eventually have children of their own. My grandchildren will not be harmed in
any way by the DOMA decision. To the contrary, my grandchildren will grow up in
a country that more strongly adhers to its most basic founding principal that
all men are created equal. I am happier today knowing that if one of my
grandchildren happens to be born homosexual, they'll have better
opportunities for a happier life in a country that should have provided those
opportunities a long time ago.

No, DOMA was not designed to "protect" chidren. Couples do not need to
marry to have children, the ability or even desire to have children is not a
prerequisite for obtaining and marriage license, and Gay couples will continue
to raise adopted children to healthy, happy, well-adjusted adulthood regardless
of their marital status.

Prop 8 proponents had the opportunity to provide evidence of harm. In court,
same-sex marriage opponents needed solid evidence. They never produced it.

The badly flawed New Family Structures Study of 15,000 adults between
the ages of 18-39 turned on this question:

S7. From when you were
born until age 18 (or until you left home to be on your own), did either of your
parents ever have a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex?
Yes, my mother had a romantic relationship with another woman Yes, my
father had a romantic relationship with another man No

Students of social science learn that every study has its strengths and
weaknesses. The purpose of social science is to offer new findings that suggest
directions for further research. Mark Regnerus’ New Family Structures
Study does both. Its strengths included using larger, more random samples than
previous studies, and utilizing reports directly from the young adult children
of same-sex relationships, instead of just relying on parental reports.
Regnerus’ findings--directly from the children themselves--raised some
valid concerns, and suggested further research before our country embraces
same-sex parenting as a good thing for society.

Even the author of that study warns that there are
limitations that prevent his work from being relevant to the DOMA debate.
Perhaps that is why he was never called to testify on behalf of that law.

What was the court to do? The Fourteenth Amendment was written to
prevent states from abusing groups of people simply because of their genetic
characteristics. The particular issue was the color of people's skin but
the country wisely generalized the principle in case misguided states (or the
federal government) tried to harm other genetically distinct categories. So how
could the supreme court let DOMA stand now that everyone, including the church,
recognizes that sexual orientation is based in DNA? Like the racial cases,
today's majority decision will ultimately be viewed as legally
exemplary.

But this notion that children are hurt by gay marriage is
absurd. Thousands of children are already in families with two mothers or two
fathers. All DOMA and Prop 8 did was to deny those kids the affirmation and
respect that society gives other boys and girls. Those children played no role
in determining their family structures. Why make them start life under the
cloud of illegitimacy?

The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families is the world’s
largest attempt to study how children raised by same-sex couples compare to
children raised by heterosexual couples. According to a preliminary report on
the study of 500 children across the country of Australia, these young people
are not only thriving, but also have higher rates of family cohesion than other
families:

An interim report found there was no statistical
difference between children of same-sex couples and the rest of the population
on indicators including self-esteem, emotional behaviour and the amount of time
spent with parents.

However, children of same-sex couples scored
higher than the national average for overall health and family cohesion,
measuring how well a family gets along.

"There were a large number of pro-gay lobbyists and
delegates from Western countries..."

While I've got a pretty
good idea what "pro-equality" lobbyist might refer to, I have a really
hard time imagining that there is such a thing as a genuine "pro-gay"
lobbyist, other than in the fevered imagination of someone who thinks that
same-sex couples are icky.

"that promoted public policy favoring
the homosexual lifestyle..."

You've just given yourself
away. What exactly is this "lifestyle" that you think is at issue here?

No one, and I mean _no one_, is advocating for a "lifestyle"
other than simple, uniform application of constitutionally guaranteed civil
liberties, including the right to consensual marriage.

This
editorial is merely a desperate, fading scream from those who don't know
the difference between their own personal religious beliefs and a representative
government operating under a fair and rational system of laws.

All of these articles not only have a problem with same sex marriage, they also
have a problem with any family arrangement that is not the biological mother and
father being married. Every marriage is different, therefore every divorce is
different. Should a woman whose husband beats her everyday stay with him for the
sake of the kids? Should a man whose wife has one affair after another stay with
her for the sake of the kids? So it really depends on the situation. I
know of children who's parents have divorced/remarried and they are well
adjusted and excelling in school. I also know of children who's parents
remain married yet they have behavioral issues. Point being that you cannot
paint every marriage and/or divorce with the same brush.

"The New Family Structures Study clearly reveals that children appear most
apt to succeed well as adults — on multiple counts and across a variety of
domains — when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother
and father and especially when the parents remain married to the present
day."

And yet Utah lets single people adopt. Funny that,
apparently having two parents is only a priority when you need an excuse to ban
same-sex marriage. Speaking of which, this editorial argues that marriage helps
kids... so how in the world is banning same-sex marriage going to help them?
Doesn't make any sense. If this editorial advocated banning same-sex
adoption I'd disagree with it but at least it'd be an actual position
that fit the argument.

Protecting children includes protecting them from the ugly judgmentalism,
demonization and ostracization coming from people who believe that being gay is
a choice, that gay parents cannot be good parents, that being gay means it is ok
for florists, bakers etc to refuse you service, that being gay means you should
never have a legally recognized marital relationship with the person that you
love.

People who discover they are gay deserve the right to their
own search for happiness through life and what that means for them. For
those who believe in God--He will be the Judge of our journeys, applying His
full measure of knowledge and understanding.

For us, the command was
to "Love one another, love your neighbor as yourself."

I was in Canada on vacation last month. The same Canada that legalized same-sex
marriage in 1999.

I didn't see moral the moral decay, the
degradation of the family, the destruction of heterosexual marriage that the
Deseret News and the forum posters continually claim. I saw families at Costco
that looked like the families here. I saw children behaving and misbehaving the
same as they do here. I saw clean, beautiful houses and apartments full of
families. I saw men and women on their way to work on the street of Vancouver
seemingly happy and safe.

If that's what DOMA was to protect us
from, then I say good riddance to DOMA.

Chairman Hyde explained that "most
people do not approve of homosexual conduct...and they express their
disapprobation through the law." 142 Cong. Rec. H7501 (July 12, 1996).

Lead Senate sponsor Don Nickles stated that "we find ourselves at
the point today that this legislation is needed" because of the "erosion
of values." 142 Cong. Rec. S4870 (May 8, 1996).

Section V.A. on
the H. R. on 3396, titled ADVANCES THE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST IN DEFENDING
TRADITIONAL NOTIONS OF MORALITY:

"For many Americans, there is to
this issue of marriage an overtly moral or religious aspect that cannot be
divorced from the practicalities....Civil laws that permit only heterosexual
marriage reflect and honor a collective moral judgment about human sexuality.
This judgment entails both moral disapproval of homosexuality, (and) moral
conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially
Judeo-Christian) morality....''

It's extremely clear
from Congress' own reports that the TRUE motivation behind DOMA was to
express disapproval of homosexuality through the law.

All this
blather about "helping children" is as obvious a ploy as putting a dress
on a pig.

Related to DOMA, even the "expert witness" for SUPPORTERS of Prop 8
admitted that same-sex marriage would HELP children.

From David
Blankenhorn's wiki page:

"Blankenhorn was presented to the
court as an expert witness...by the proponents of California Proposition 8
(2008)....During questioning, Blankenhorn stated "I believe that adopting
same-sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian
households and their children." Also, he identified 22 other benefits of
adopting same-sex marriage... it would: increase the proportion of gays and
lesbians in stable, committed relationships; lead to higher living standards for
same-sex couples; lead to fewer children growing up in state institutions and
more growing up in loving adoptive and foster families; decrease the amount of
anti-gay prejudice and hate crimes; and decrease the number of those warily
viewed as "other" in society, further reaching the American
ideal."

He also says in a NYT article: "And to my deep
regret, much of the opposition to gay marriage seems to stem, at least in part,
from an underlying anti-gay animus. "